| 1 |
On 20-02-2006 13:02:49 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sunday 19 February 2006 11:21, Grobian wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Question for now is whether we want to add these packages to some |
| 4 |
> > separate tree, either within or outside of Gentoo, or have them in the |
| 5 |
> > main tree. In the latter case, we can make a separate category |
| 6 |
> > (macos-only?) to put them in, or try to mix them in the tree (where |
| 7 |
> > would qt-mac fit? and should it require a virtual because it provides |
| 8 |
> > qt?) |
| 9 |
> First "quick step" would be to put them on gentoo-alt overlay for the first |
| 10 |
> rounds, I thought we already discussed that. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I don't really understand your (over) reaction here. But alas. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Remember the past with other devs ranting because stuff was shoved into the |
| 15 |
> tree without enough testing, or with an audience so limited that likely |
| 16 |
> nobody would use them. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I don't think anyone implied that we should do that immediately. I was |
| 19 |
just asking for opinions. Not sure how I want to do it in the end. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> About categories... a sys-* category is not the case... qt-mac would probably |
| 22 |
> fill into dev-libs as there's not a precise category for it (x11-libs carries |
| 23 |
> the x11 versions). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
True. Defenitely a better place for it. Problem remains with the |
| 26 |
package still on micro level, that it "provides" qt somehow. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> P.S.: a wxMac ebuild shouldn't be difficult to prepare, either.. when I wrote |
| 29 |
> wxlib eclass I had that in mind... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Might be a nice addition to the 'group'. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 36 |
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |
Archives